I had gotten complaints about it, and I felt like I was inserting a fetish in a way that wasn't really convincing, just to insert a fetish. So I removed it.
Isn't that a part of the appeal of the game though, to explore fetishtistic desires that might interest some players? Also, why does there need to be a particularly special reason for a character to potentially have a specific fetish? A lot of people don't really have a deep insightful grasp for why they have a particular fetish, of which, an interest in submission or feet is rather common as far as fetishes are concerned in the first place.
Moreover, it doesn't really seem like a consistent perspective behind choices in what's in the game since I wouldn't say every single fetishistic piece of content in the game necessarily has some sort of deep meaning behind it, and I'm not saying that as a criticism either. I think it's completely fair and valid to just give players options that resonate with them that make the game more satisfying on a personal level, rather, I think that's a plus, not a minus. After all, people will naturally want to be able to make choices that resonate with them on a personal level in a game like this, right?
For a more meta perspective, I don't see why if someone didn't care for it as an option, that they just couldn't opt out of it, rather than have it be removed for those who did like it. It's ultimately a net negative since it was never forced to begin with, or am I missing something? In my mind, more options to what you can do is always a plus, especially in a context orbiting highly subjective optional interest in how a character can express their intimate desires.
At the end of the day, the only thing that occured was that people who liked and related to intimate expression regarding foot play and the submissive undertones connected to it lost content they enjoyed and resonated with. No one actually benefits from its removal since it was never a forced option. Of which, even if it were, it could have simply been made optional. I think this would be true for any other such content removal of this nature. It only serves to throw people under the bus for no real benefit.
Isn't this so? I hope you will reconsider this choice and the implications behind it, since it seems like if enough people complain about a completely optional piece of content in the game, there is now a precedent for it to be removed when no one actually benefits from a choice like that. I don't think it's a justifiable outlook that people simply can't help themselves and purposely choose options they don't like. That would be a fault on them, would it not? And so, why should people who liked the content in question need to suffer for others' inability to simply not choose options they know they won't like?
I think this is a perspective worth considering, as I think it has a lot of merit and truth within it that corresponds to real world outcomes in regard to the enjoyment of the game.
